A line-by-line evaluation of the Climate Strategy memo, which the Heartland Institute has repeatedly denounced as a “fake” shows no “obvious and gross misstatements of fact,” as Heartland has alleged. On the contrary, the Climate Strategy document is corroborated by Heartland’s own material and/or by its allies and employees.

It also uses phrases, language and, in many cases, whole sentences that were taken directly from Heartland’s own material. Only someone who had previous access to all of that material could have prepared the Climate Strategy in its current form.

In all the circumstances – taking into account Peter Gleick’s explanation of the origin of the Heartland documents, and in direct contradiction of Heartland’s stated position – DeSmogBlog has concluded that the Climate Strategy memo is authentic.

Based on the balance of probabilities, I would say the document is authentic. Of course most climate sceptics will continue to deny that the document is authentic. Why?

Heartland Institute has little choice to deny ownership of the document. Where they to admit authorship, they expose themselves to:

the possible loss of their tax-exempt charitable status

confirmation of the role of think tanks in undermining the IPCC and the work of scientists

the reputation of not just of Heartland, but those affiliated with its activities, being destroyed.

Bad actors: doubt is their only product

Heartland Institute has been proven again, and again to be “bad actors” in any contentious public policy debate. For decades it mislead the public on the effects of second-hand smoke and the seriousness of climate change. It’s “donors” operate behind a smokescreen of anonymity.

In Bast’s view the link is unproven, and anyone asserting there is a link they must be part of an enormous conspiracy to impose government regulations and rob people of their “freedoms”:

Who’s Claiming Consensus?

Far from being the last word on the health effects of secondhand smoke, Carmona’s report and its uncritical acceptance by frequent commentators on smoking raise questions about bias, error, and the deliberate orchestration of public opinion. The commentators who echo the Surgeon General’s claim fall into one or more of five groups:

Liberal advocacy groups such as the Center for Tobacco Free Kids, American Cancer Society, and American Legacy Foundation, which clearly profit from increased public attention to secondhand smoke.

Government agencies, including the Office of the Surgeon General, the Department of Health and Human Services, and EPA, which exist largely for the purpose of discovering and publicizing health risks, even if they are backed by dubious research.

Some corporations–notably Johnson & Johnson, which makes smoking-cessation aids–which give liberal advocacy groups hundreds of millions of dollars to demonize smoking and compel more consumers to use their products.

The news media, which simply publish the news releases from the first three groups.

Politicians, who read the newspaper stories and hear from the advocacy groups and rationally calculate their odds of being reelected improve if they proclaim deep concern over secondhand smoke and propose solutions that will cost taxpayers and consumers billions of dollars annually.

Heavy-Handed Government

The idea that smokers and nonsmokers might solve this problem voluntarily is dismissed out of hand by those who claim secondhand-smoke exposure is a public health crisis. The “solutions” they want all require bigger government: higher taxes on cigarettes, bans on smoking in public, restrictions on advertising and health claims, etc.

Oddly, these solutions all work to advance the self-interest and agendas of the five groups that repeat Carmona’s claim of “consensus.” What are the odds this correlation is coincidental?

Note the arguments employed are almost exactly the same used in the war against climate science: liberal conspiracies, the media, big government… this is the denier script for climate change.

The 2012 Strategy Document confirms what we’ve known all along: organisations such as Heartland are in the business of manufacturing a single product.

regarding the Lindzen house of commons seminar and lindzen’ claim of fraud by GISS ,

at RC

Like Gavin S and Eric S, I am inclined to ascribe Lindzen’s mistake of mixing up LOTI and Met indices to incompetence (and perhaps not a little bias in failing to check his work when confronted with an inexplicably large difference between two versions of ostensibly the same data set).

But should he refuse to unequivocally withdraw the accusation against GISS, that would be a different matter.

[Response: Note that I have received a note from Lindzen apologising for the error (and I have passed it along to the people involved in GISTEMP). – gavin]

what is the bet that Lindzen’s nonsense will still be echoed a thousand times?

You keep believing your little justifications, it’s okay, I’ve seen exactly the same thing from fundies and anti-vaxers. If I didn’t know better I’d swear you were taking lessons from them. You and Kent Hovind have so much in common it’s uncanny.

What you mean that the cold is not due to the Little ice age starting next week?. “they” must surely stone her for this,

“Our study demonstrates that the decrease in Arctic sea ice area is linked to changes in the winter Northern Hemisphere atmospheric circulation,” said Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech. “The circulation changes result in more frequent episodes of atmospheric blocking patterns, which lead to increased cold surges and snow over large parts of the northern continents.”

The study was published on 27 February 2012 in the online early edition of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The research was supported by NASA and the National Science Foundation.

Where is the Flim Flam Man – Tim Flannery – who said that it would never rain again (er and if it did er the dirt would be so hot that the rain would evaporate) disappear into the – see my understanding of Flannery’s understanding of science is not good.

After reviewing some of the media reports, Rice added, “It would appear that the items were given to outsiders under false pretenses as opposed to a breach of their IT system or theft.”
“As such, there would be no legal basis for us to investigate,” Rice said.
An FBI spokesman in Washington said he could neither confirm nor deny the existence of an investigation.

Love all the Sceptics self righteousness going on at the moment about faking stuff,

Some time ago

*Evidence of the campaign starkly presented in things like this:
“Probably the most significant thing to happen to Skeptical Science over the last few weeks was the website got hacked! The first time it happened, content was changed in the skeptic arguments and one comment was overwritten (sorry, Peter Hogarth, you were the unlucky victim). A week later, they managed to remove most of the blog posts off the homepage. I am deeply indebted to Doug Bostrom who was able to figure out how the hacker got in, where they came from and offer a mountain of very wise and helpful advice on how to secure the website.

Another possibility reading Shawn’s post is that Mosher wrote it trying to duplicate gleik’s style and passed it on to gleik hoping that he would only release that but not suspecting that gleik would authenticate the information through his impersonation, shawn might now use Mosher Gleik and Bast in a textometry, stylometry analysis, if mosher did send it to gleik how good was he at impersonating Gleik’s sytle?

heartland have claimed that the strategy document did not come from them but their whole effort is put into claiming that it was not Bast, Bast examines the document and concludes that he did not write it , so what?

set up a strawman?

why claim that they have released all off gleik’s emails when obviously they haven’t, there are no requests in those emails for all the information that Heartland sent peter, where are the rest? or are they just stupid.?

The reason will be that peter will ask for specific documents, knowing what to ask for as he had the strategy document to reference . heartland would not wish that be known.

“Peter Gleick resigned as chair of AGU’s Task Force on Scientific Ethics on 16 February, prior to admitting in a blog post that he obtained documents from the Heartland Institute under false pretenses. His transgression cannot be condoned, regardless of his motives. It is a tragedy that requires us to stop and reflect on what we value as scientists and how we want to be perceived by the public”

Please note this statement. His transgression cannot be condoned, regardless of his motives.

The American Geophysical Union affirms the basic scientific conclusions of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report and endorses the recommendations of the InterAcademy Council for improving the IPCC process. Implementing these recommendations will strengthen IPCC’s efforts to ensure the best science is available to inform the public and policy makers about the reality of climate change and its consequences for the planet.

here is the real IPCC AR4 model , note that the trend is following the expected path, a strong El nino 1998 was 0.2DegC above the trend and current la nina and low TSI place it below the trend , in neutral years for ENSO and TSI the anomally is following the trend as revealed Foster and Rahmstorf 2012

Geoff, I find you assertion that you are a defender of science, and are disturbed by what you see as propaganda by those who support the basic idea that global warming, influenced by anthropogenic activities, is occurring.

What I see in your comments is an approach akin to those wishing to teach creationism (under whatever new name they stick on it) alongside evolution in a science class use: take something unscientific, talk about it in what you hope passes for “science-y” terms, then argue the actual, real *science* whose outlines have been accepted by virtually every climate scientist in the world (and most of those in related disciplines as well) is nothing but an “opinion.”

I’m not trained even in something as basic as short-term weather forecasting, let alone climate science. But I do have some training in classical logic and debate, as well as having studied the nature of propaganda and textual analysis (the latter two primarily on my own for several decades). Apparently you are unaware of the fact that there are two basic types of opinions: informed ones, and uninformed ones. But surely you know the difference. If an oncologist sends you for a full battery of lab tests and a CT scan or MRI then informs you have some form of cancer — BUT your auto mechanic who was, say, a medic in the military had previously told you after eyeballing you that you appeared just fine to him (or her) — which are you likely to believe? the reverse is probably true, too — an oncologist is highly unlikely to be as informed about auto mechanics as yours is, so of course you’ll trust the doctor about the cancer — and the mechanic about what ails your car.

In that analogy, climate scientists and their professional cousins are the oncologist; you are the auto mechanic. Yet you want to claim that the oncologists’ doing the research and examining the results conclusions are, at best, :just another “opinion” — meaning “an opinion of no more value than mine.” At worst, you falsely (the general “you,” not you personally, Geoff, as I’m unaware of you in particular doing this) claim the scientists research conclusions have been “disproved.” That stoops to deliberate deception –commonly called “lying.”

You’re not defending science, Sir. You are dressing up delusions and falsehoods, then claiming they are “science.” Perhaps it is — on Planet Bizarro, in the 11th dimension out beyond the Andromeda Galaxy or some such, — but not on Earth.

I don’t mean to be impolite. I am saying you need to sit back and reflect upon some of your (apparently) deeply-held views, assumptions, and beliefs. They do not — cannot — stand up under the cold, clear, and often merciless glaring light of logic and fact.

Has the last word been said about current AGW? No, it hasn’t; actual scientists are constantly refining models, revisiting data for another look, etc. Will we indeed likely have another Ice Age, including perhaps a Great Ice Age? Probably, if past history holds any lessons and the planet survives long enough (and I do mean Earth itself, not life on it). After all, some climate scientists think we may have had half a dozen or so huge ice ages during our past, including — maybe — the “Snowball Earth” scenario.

But another Great Ice Age or Snowball Earth is highly unlikely to happen anytime soon — hundreds of thousands, millions, or tens of millions of years from now, depending on just how big a freeze we’re contemplating. A warming planet, warming sufficient to have noticeable and maybe dire implications for humans and other life on the planet appears possible, and soon — in decades, not ages and ages.

Around 1800, not long after the start of the Industrial Revolution, the total global population is widely thought to have been about 1 billion people; today, we’ve added another 6+ billion — and adding fast. Surely you can see at least the possibility of a casual relationship there, not merely a simaltaneous and purely coincidental parallel in time.

Last point: I have a number of friends who work in the oil industry. When this entire issue really began gaining widespread attention back in the 1990’s, virtually all of them mocked the very idea that humans could possibly have ANY effect on overal global climate. Then a couple of them, unknown to each other, took jobs on Alaska’s North Slope where, coincidentally, both had worked before. They came back changed men; their bosses in their respective companies were all worried, right to the top, about the Big Thaw that threatened their oil derricks’ stability. They know many of the same people I do — directional drillers, platform superintendants, mud engineers, etc. — and those two began talking about their experiences. Some of my friends still insist the whole idea of human-caused climate change is an Al Gore lie or whatever; most have gradually reached other conclusions — all tending to favor that “Al Gore lie” to some degree or other. A couple have even become ardent defenders of the idea, having been convinced by their own eyes.

Nobody does double standards better than climate change denialists. If you were in any way objective Ray, you would be directing as much venom at the Heartland Institute that you do towards Peter Gleick.

While Gleick’s actions may be questionable, his motives were well-intentioned, you can’t say the same for Heartland, either for their actions or motives.

“Nobody does double standards better than climate change denialists.” Like Al Gore preaching the evils of carbon based fuel while consuming a mountain of the stuff supporting a lavish lifestyle or the outragious amounts of jet fuel used to pull off worthless climate conferences? Cancun Yeehah party time!

No one to my knowledge has filed criminal action against Heartland so please explain why I should condemn them .Opposing views are healthy, not grounds for contempt or venom.

Peter Gleick’s clumsy and illegal attempt to damage Heartland deserves contempt, he realizes that now after losing positions and ruining his credibility, it’s unfortunate you condone such action in the course of civil debate.

Ray, I realise you are blinded by your lack of objectivity but I would have thought even you may have grasped the basic hypocrisy of the Heartland Institute whining about illegally procured documents of theirs being used against them while they had no qualms about using and cherry picking data from documents that were also illegally obtained.

I’d love to understand how your tiny mind manages to justify the intentional deception of Heartland Institute but you get all precious and hairy chested because Peter Gleick was driven by the frustration of seeing deceivers not being held to account and for their deliberate distortions of fact.

I just hope you are never on a jury. The concept of innocence until proven guilty and mitigating circumstances is clearly lost on you.

See, this is why people don’t like climate alarmists. Even when a theory is thoroughly debunked by facts, climate alarmists continue to support the theory. It’s shameful. I can’t believe any of you still truly believe that the faked document is in any way an accurate portrayal of Heartland, yet you still act as if it’s real.

I have lots of friends and being friends means they like me. Which people are you talking about? Also don’t you think disliking someone because they have a different opinion to you is a bit juvenile? In the adult world, it is more than possible to separate personal feelings from opinions. If you actually dislike a whole suite of people because of their opinions, that says more about you than anyone. Clearly you are a denier but that wouldn’t stop me from befriending you. You’re probably a very nice person.

“Most people will have few options when the cold weather damage starts to affect the availability of food in the quantities we now take for granted. Americans and most people in Western nations are used to having plenty to eat. It would be a mighty struggle for most of us to adjust to less food, and we would be pretty upset if food prices doubled or tripled in one or two month’s time.”

With the Heartland Institute wanting to get their propaganda taught in science classes, maybe a practical demonstration by any putting forward the strawman argument and claiming that CO2 is not a poison is in order. I reckon plastic bags taped over their heads should do the trick. It would certainly leave a lot more space for intelligent comments in here.

I reckon that we get brown to prove his point by placing his finger in the beam of a CO2 laser,

certainly be brown then and crispy. actually whenever brown gets into open debate he gets pummeled, makes him feel secure with his little The Coward Sceptics blog
you need a head vice to look at it, The contradictions and lack of cohesion are legendary , has not put up his science here because he knows that it is rubbish and would be refuted, just yelling along with klem is about all they are good for,

MARKEY ASKS HEARTLAND FOR DENIERGATE DOCUMENTS | Documents from the Heartland Institute have revealed the right-wing think tank is crafting a campaign to question climate science in classrooms. Although Heartland has proudly admitted its anti-science agenda, it has tried to cast doubt on the authenticity of the documents. Today, Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) wrote to the Heartland Institute to request original copies of the documents so that Congress can assess Heartland’s corporate-funded efforts to influence science education.

Heartland officials [stated] that they have been in talks with the
FBI over the case against prominent global warming proponent Peter
Gleick, co-founder of the respected Pacific Institute. Heartland is
getting ready to reveal their probe of the affair, which they hope the
FBI will act on.”

heartland have claimed that the Koch? money was specified for medical research?

well, not allowed according to their own words

Policies regarding donors: The Heartland Institute enforces policies that limit the role donors may play in the selection of research topics, peer review, and publication plans of the organization. Heartland does not conduct contract research. These policies ensure that no Heartland researcher or spokesperson is subject to undue pressure from a donor.

Yesterday the FBI was called in by Heartland. I’m not sure what it means at this point because the head of the FBI Chicago unit stated that from what he had read of the Heartland matter from news reports, that he wasn’t sure that an FBI investigation was warranted. So it remains to be seen if the FBI gets involved.

Great fun to read this post and comments as one of your great agw messiahs circles the drain suffering from a very stupid self inflicted wound. Watching the Deniers fell back to default mode (tobacco) which has nothing to do with anything, Rational honest commenters get insulted while the flock pound the table pointing in the opposite direction from Peter Glieck. Who has so far lost two of his prestigious postitions, gained the attention of the FBI, vanished from sight, and prudently hired, at I am sure great cost, two very expensive attorneys.

Ahh now I wasn’t going to post again but now I need to. There are two Mikes. The Mike who runs this blog and me. Mike who runs the blog is Watching the Deniers (I know its surprising isn’t it?) and me, Mike (go figure) I am just a visitor here. I had to explain something similar to my niece the other day. She got it straight away. She’s 5.

Geoff I apologise for calling you an idiot. Usually I don’t lets someone’s rudeness and impoliteness and failure to understand even the simplest of things bother me. I need to be reminded that sometimes people can’t help it if they weren’t born with the inate ability to reason. I used to get frustrated at Tasmanians when i first moved down there too and my wife told me that I need to not get angry because I wouldn’t abuse someone who is mentally handicapped. Clearly I need to take the same line with you. Don’t get me wrong, I honestly believe you probably aren’t mentally retarded and you are most likely just acting that way.

Now as for the rest, I don’t see what other people post here but I can honestly say I have never cut and pasted anything from any blog to anywhere…ever so I am perfectly able to take that position. Have you ever seen any evidence that I have cut and pasted from a blog? I don’t know why I am asking you because you are too impolite to answer.

As for your being polite, I don’t know how you were raised but I was raised to tell the truth, and answer any questions that were asked of me because that is polite. You can’t claim that you do either.

I would also say that if you don’t want people to insult you, you could try some of the politeness you falsely claim you have.

I said it before but this is definitely the last time I am going to respond directly to you. You choose to remain wilfully ignorant and the way you do so is extremely juvenile and for someone your age,that is extremely sad.

I shalll find far more tactful ways of calling Geoff an idiot in the future but having to mollycoddle these people all the time is tiring. Sometimes a spade needs to be called a spade, but alas this is your site so I shall abide by your request. Its a good thing he hasn’t admitted to being a fundy. You’d have to ban me.

EVER heard the one about climate scientists being a bunch of rent-seekers just out to chase taxpayers money, or the one where climate change scientists are just part of an elite left-wing conspiracy out to trample on the heretics?

How about your nearest conservative columnist telling you that “green is the new red” or how climate science and environmentalism has become a new religion?

Where do these rhetorical tricks and debating points actually come from? How does the echo chamber work?

In Australia, a new study has found these themes often don’t spring forth from the minds of insightful and thoughtful newspaper columnists and bloggers.

Rather, many have emerged from the free-market think-tankery of Australia’s The Institute of Public Affairs, which has been muddying the waters of climate science for more than 20 years.

Published in the international peer-reviewed journal Journalism Studies, the author, University of Technology Sydney PhD candidate Elaine McKewon, reveals how popular rhetorical “fantasy themes” which aim to create controversy around climate science are conceived at the IPA before being repeated, magnified, endorsed and legitimised in the opinion pages of Australian newspapers.

Putting words in my mouth? Why am I not surprised. Maybe I need to clarify my position for you. If you are getting all your information on climate science from blogs then you are an idiot. Blogs are a good tool for disseminating information but if you lack the intellect or will or both to cast a critical eye over what you read in a blog than you are an idiot. If you cut and paste blindly from blogs without understanding what it is you are pasting then you are an idiot. i guess Geoff that makes you an idiot . I have given you multiple opportunities to redeem yourself but clearly you are happy to have us all consider you an idiot.

I see you have also chosen to ignore my questions again. Your idiocy is surpassed only by your rudeness.

Whoa Mike, whoa there big fella. Calm down. Try not to be so emotional. Don’t get all worked up over Geoff’s comments. He’s getting under your skin and its coming out in your replies. Its not good for your health, you might have a stroke. It’s only Geoff after all, he’s only a climate skeptic, his comments can easily be ignored or laughed at, but you are trying to fight him.

Wasn’t it that little guy named Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi who said “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

Now, heres where it gets interesting, one reader by the name of Shawn Lawrence, took up Anthony Watts challenge and published his results in the Huffington Post, with caveats. The actual author of the alleged fake document, as has been claimed by Joe Bast, comes as no real big surprise, given the actual history of Heartland Institute, since it was first created! Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shawn-lawrence-otto/joe-bast-fake-document_b_1297042.html

Any real cynic, including all news media reporters, would ask Joe Bast, six basic questions. One of which would be mandatory, since being conned over the so called “ClimateGate Context Free Email Scam of 2009″ , “where is the proof Joe?” or, you are just blowing more smoke and mirrors to hide the truth .

“But if you are an actual global warming skeptic, this is a big red flag, because we skeptics view ourselves as the defenders of science”

Geoff you continually demonstrate time and time again that you wouldn’t recognise science if it bit you one the arse. If you are such a defender of science, why are you not prepared to put your scientific understanding to the test? You have in another blog put forward those “900+ peer reviewed papers” as evidence that AGW isn’t occurring. When I asked you to pick out the best one of those for me to question you about, you ignored me. Why? Because we both know that you only know how to cut and paste and parrot garbage that other people post. You don’t have the credentials to even grasp some of the simplest scientific principles and you lack the ability to critically examine any scientific evidence of any sort, yet you have the audacity to call yourself a “defender of science”. But you don’t really call yourself that do you? No, you cut and pasted that so not only do you lack scientific credentials but you lack imagination as well. I’m totally convinced you are incapable of thinking for yourself at all. How do you remember to eat?

Now, this is where you demonstrate your lack of imagination and ignore everything I’ve said and repeat ad nauseum what you’ve cut and pasted to previous posts about the “hypothesis has been disproven” without providing any evidence to support such a ridiculous and outlandish statement.

As for your cut and paste about Megan McArdle all I can say is Megan who? Ohhhhh, that Megan, Megan the blogger. Well there’s some credentials for you. You should probably go to her blog Geoff. I’m sure there will be plenty for you to blindly and uncritically cut and paste from there.

What never ceases to amaze me though is the way all the denial machine all feeds of one another. That article Geoff that you cut and paste from was written by Robert Tracinski. Of course Robert Tracinski is a member of the right wing think tank called the Ayn Rand Institute which in 2008 or 2009 was a cosponsor of the Heartland Institute’s climate skeptics conference. Surprise surprise. Tell me Geoff how you feel about the statement that the Ayn Rand Institute made in 2004 that “U.S. Should Not Help Tsunami Victims”? They are prepared to spend bucketloads of money poisoning the minds of children in the US with anti-altruistic, selfish and greedy dogma but not help out people in need. How do you feel about that Geoff?

Anyway, no doubt you will ignore anything I’ve rasied that makes you uncomfortable and enlighten us with more of your brilliant cutting and pasting.

No No No Mike, geoffs science is that he has 900 papers, not that he has read any of them or even understands them.

anyone that actually read them would not be claiming 900, i think there are about twenty that might make the grade but even those are irrelevant
looked at them when they had 450 , waste of time going further

even the authors of some of them demand that their papers be taken off the list, bit like monckton arguing with authors about the results of their studies and claiming that they do not understand their own conclusions, classic DK

Incorrect, all of the counted papers have been peer-reviewed and appear in peer-reviewed journals. What would “make the grade” or are “irrelevant” is subjective. Thus your “claims” are just your opinion, nothing more.

No author who’s paper is on the list has ever been argued with over their own conclusions. What some have been argued with is why their paper was listed, which is not based on the strawman argument they assumed. In each one of these cases they falsely believed their paper was listed to show that it was anti-AGW. This is incorrect their papers were listed because they support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW Alarm. None of which has anything to do with Lord Monckton.

Brown i have read your co2 science nonsense then looked at Idso’s distortion, then found the paper that he does not have the guts to link to and find that he has lifted one small piece of a paper that does not have the conclusion that he claims

Oppo et al 2009 was an example of his disinformation gobbled up by you without checking, that does not make you a sceptic, it makes you a gullible fool

Thus papers can be listed that support AGW is occurring but the consequences will not be catastrophic. All of the paper support skeptic arguments against Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC), Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) or ACC/AGW Alarm.

ACC/AGW Alarm: (defined), “concern relating to a perceived negative environmental or socio-economic effect of ACC/AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic.”

“But there was one document, a “confidential strategy memo” that provided more inflammatory material, including an admission that one of Heartland’s programs is aimed at “dissuading teachers from teaching science.” See, those evil global warming deniers really are anti-science!

But if you are an actual global warming skeptic, this is a big red flag, because we skeptics view ourselves as the defenders of science who are trying to protect it from corruption by an anti-capitalist political agenda. We never, in our own private discussions, refer to ourselves as discouraging the teaching of science. Quite the contrary.

This is the dead giveaway that the “confidential strategy memo” is a fake, and that is what the real scandal has become. The Atlantic blogger Megan McArdle helped break this open with an initial post raising questions, as well as a detailed follow-up. McArdle gets a little too far into the weeds of information technology, not to mention grammar and English usage, but the basic issue is that the “meta-data” in the Heartland files—data marking when the documents were created, on what machines, in what format, and in what time zone—don’t match. Most of the documents were created directly as PDFs from a word-processing program, while the supposed “confidential strategy memo” was printed and then scanned. The genuine Heartland files were created weeks earlier in the central time zone, while the incriminating memo was created very shortly before the release of the documents and in the Pacific time zone. This corroborates Heartland’s claim that the document is a fake.”

Geoff, you wouldn’t recognise science if it bit you on the arse. You are not a “global warming skeptic” because you are not skeptical regarding players such as Heartland. You are a global warming denier. Suck it up.

I find it very disturbing to read today that AL Gore’s Science Fiction Movie is to be included in Australian Schools Curricula. I sure that you will remember that the British High Court ruled that it was Alarmist and contained nine significant errors. Mr Justice Burton……said that some of the claims were wrong and had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration”. Quotes from The Times which goes on to detail errors.

Today we read in the MSM that it is going to be included in the curricula of schools around the country. The reports include:

The Herald-Sun (letters hsletters@heraldsun.com.au)
Al Gore film An Inconvenient Truth included in school curriculum
There is an on-line poll on that Herald-Sun Page.